From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chee, Tien Fong Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:43:01 +0000 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/9] ARM: socfpga: Bundle U-Boot fitImage into SFP on Arria10 In-Reply-To: References: <1542796908-7947-1-git-send-email-tien.fong.chee@intel.com> <1542796908-7947-5-git-send-email-tien.fong.chee@intel.com> <1542966858.10129.30.camel@intel.com> <1543228254.10014.25.camel@intel.com> <1543309258.10323.22.camel@intel.com> Message-ID: <1543416180.20584.3.camel@intel.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 13:09 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 11/27/2018 10:00 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 12:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > On 11/26/2018 11:30 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2018-11-23 at 13:40 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/23/2018 10:54 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 15:21 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/21/2018 11:41 AM, tien.fong.chee at intel.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee > > > > > > > Did you change Author:ship of the patch ? > > > > > I believe you did, so please fix that. > > > > Very sorry. I din't realize the author name was changed. > > > Please be careful next time. > > Sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bundle U-Boot fitImage containing U-Boot and FPGA > > > > > > > > bitstream > > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > u-boot-with-spl.sfp on Arria10. This lets U-Boot > > > > > > > > operate in > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > similar fashion to Gen5, where the U-Boot binary got > > > > > > > > loaded > > > > > > > > by > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > SPL from a uImage concatenated at the end of the SPL > > > > > > > > SFP > > > > > > > > image. > > > > > > > > On > > > > > > > > Gen10, the U-Boot is in fitImage which contains the > > > > > > > > FPGA > > > > > > > > bitstream > > > > > > > > as well. In this case, the SPL can load the FPGA > > > > > > > > bitstream > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > load the U-Boot afterward in the same manner. This is > > > > > > > > nonetheless a > > > > > > > > stopgap measure until there is a proper firmware loader > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > U- > > > > > > > > Boot. > > > > > > > Right, this is a stopgap measure until FW loader is > > > > > > > present. > > > > > > > Why > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > patch needed at all in this series ? > > > > > > This patch is cherry picked from the sdmmc_next custodian, > > > > > > so > > > > > > this > > > > > > patch is required for generating FIT image. I can remove > > > > > > the > > > > > > stopgap > > > > > > comment to avoid confusing. > > > > > But why is this patch needed at all ? You use the firmware > > > > > loader > > > > > to > > > > > load the FPGA bitstream. Where does the fitImage come into > > > > > play ? > > > > > > > > > > The fitImage was used to circumvent the missing FW loader, > > > > > when I > > > > > needed > > > > > to load multiple files (bitstream and u-boot binary). Now > > > > > there > > > > > is no > > > > > such requirement anymore, so the entire fitImage machinery is > > > > > probably > > > > > not needed ? > > > > Loading issue is not the reason we choose the fitImage. We > > > > choose > > > > it > > > > because it allows more flexibility in handling various type > > > > images, > > > > especially it allows user more choices to enhance integrity and > > > > security protection. > > > Do you need to load multiple images at all ? Do you need the > > > extra > > > flexibility or does it only bloat and slow down the boot process > > > for > > > no > > > benefit at all? If a user needs it, they can enable it, but do we > > > need > > > it by default ? > > Okay, then we add in the fitImage support and let user to enable > > it. > > So, without CONFIG_SPL_FIT is defined, then the boot process would > > be > > with individual files such as u-boot-dtb.img instead of u-boot.itb. > Yes, so all these fitImage patches can be dropped for now ? This patch can be dropped. But i don't know it is good idea to reserve the patch 5-8, this would be easier for user to enable CONFIG_SPL_FIT in future. >